Trade disputes further erode Turkish-US-relations

Halil Celik

The trade war measures signed by US President Donald Trump and disputes over oil and gas exploration in the eastern Mediterranean have further en-flamed the tensions between Washington and Ankara, which are already engaged militarily on opposite sides in the Kurdish regions of Syria.

Following Trump’s decision to impose import tariffs of 25 percent on steel and 10 percent on aluminum, Turkey and the European Union reached an agreement to act together against the measures. According to an official statement, Turkish Economy Minister Nihat Zeybekci and EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström agreed in a phone call “that they should act together at the World Trade Organization in the future.”

WTO Director Roberto Azevedo stated on Tuesday that the tariffs on steel and aluminum could trigger a trade war, which would not be in anybody’s interest. “When we enter this road it will be very difficult to turn away. The concept of an eye for an eye can blind us and drag the world into a deep recession,” he said.

Turkey’s steel exports to the US were worth $1.2 billion last year, amounting to some 10 percent of its total steel exports, while aluminum exports reached $78.5 million. Cemil Ertem, a prominent adviser of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, wrote in the Milliyet daily that Ankara might retaliate tariffs on “alternative goods” such as cotton.

Further tensions have arisen, when Turkish, Greece and Cypriot media reported this week, that the Pentagon has strengthened its naval forces in the eastern Mediterranean to escort an ExxonMobil ship heading for oil and gas exploration in Cypriot waters.

The Russian news agency Sputnik reported that “ships from both the US Navy and Marine Corps, as well as oil surveyors from ExxonMobil, arrived in the Mediterranean Sea. The ships’ arrival comes just days after a standoff between Turkish naval vessels and Italian drillers over a disputed economic zone.”

ExxonMobil’s spokeswoman Suann Guthrie told the Cyprus News Agency that the acreage licensed to ExxonMobil is not contested by Turkey.

Turkish Presidential spokesman Ibrahim Kalin told reporters that Cyprus should carry out hydrocarbon activities with the participation of the Turkish Cypriot administration. “We have no problem with gas exploration and drilling activities in the region”, he said. “But if you initiate illegal means in your exploration efforts and violate sovereign rights, there will, of course, be consequences. Turkey will never hesitate in taking the necessary steps.”

Tensions between Turkey, Greek Cyprus and Greece increased last month, as the Turkish navy blocked an exploration vessel of the Italian energy company ENI off the southeastern coast of the island, known as Block 3. Ankara considers this block, among others, as part of the economic zone of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, created in the northern part of the island in 1983 and recognized only by Turkey. It stands categorically against any exploratory drilling for oil and gas off Cyprus, without approval of the Turkish Cypriots.

In an interview with the Greek daily Kathimerini, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu explained that increasing “the use of its domestic energy resources” is “one of the major elements of Turkish energy policy”. According to Cavusoglu, “This includes the hydrocarbon resources that are potentially located in our maritime jurisdiction areas in the Eastern Mediterranean. It is our sovereign right to search for and to exploit these resources. Therefore, we plan to launch our drilling activities in the Eastern Mediterranean in the near future.”

Cavusoglu said it was “unacceptable that the Greek Cypriot side persists in acting as though it were the sole owner of the island. Both the Turkish Cypriots and Turkey have repeatedly stressed that unilateral exploration and exploitation activities in the Eastern Mediterranean are not legitimate in the absence of a just and lasting comprehensive settlement in Cyprus,” he added.

Egypt also got involved in the issue, after Cavusoglu described the December 2013 agreement between Egypt and Cyprus on the joint exploitation of hydrocarbon reserves in the eastern Mediterranean as “null and void.” In an official statement the Egyptian Foreign Ministry warned Ankara that “any attempts targeting or undermining Egypt’s sovereign rights in that region will be rejected and confronted.”

Turkey and Egypt had close ties under the former President Mohammed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood, before he was toppled by General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi in a US-backed coup in July 2013. Since then, relations between Egypt and Turkey have suffered a heavy blow. Meanwhile, Egyptian-Cypriot relations have continued to develop.

Along with ExxonMobil and ENI, BP and Total are also amongst the energy giants descending on the eastern Mediterranean area in a quest for super profits that threatens to further escalate not only major disputes between regional states, but also inter-imperialist rivalries.

Meanwhile, Ankara has reiterated its calls for the US to prevent the Syrian Kurdish fighters of the People’s Protection Units’ (YPG) from traveling to the Afrin region of Syria to fight against the Turkish military and its proxy ground force, the so-called Free Syrian Army. Turkey has long been enraged at Washington’s support for the YPG, which Ankara views as a terrorist organization.

At a news conference on Tuesday, March 6, Turkey’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Hami Aksoy accused the Pentagon’s spokesperson Col. Robert Manning of continuing “to speak nonsense”. A day earlier, the latter had said that some ground operations against the Islamic State by the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), the main US proxy force in Syria dominated by the YPG, had been temporarily put on hold because of Turkey’s Afrin operation.

The deployment of Kurdish forces to Afrin has also been confirmed by Maj. Adrian Rankine-Galloway, another Pentagon spokesman, who said, “Some fighters operating within the SDF have decided to leave operations in the middle Euphrates river valley to fight elsewhere, possibly in Afrin”. Previously, US Gen. Joseph Votel, head of the US Central Command, said Turkish activity in Afrin was distracting from the fight against the Islamic State.

While the Islamic State forces have largely been defeated, the Pentagon still needs the YPG to hold territory in Syria in order to assure US imperialism another base for its operations in the Middle East—a strategic aim that Washington seeks to conceal under the pretext of ensuring that the Islamist militant group does not re-emerge.

Confusion over US tariff exemptions

Nick Beams

Held over the weekend, a top level meeting in Brussels failed to bring any clarity over whether, and under what conditions, the European Union and Japan could be exempted from the steel and aluminium tariffs to be introduced by the United States under “national security” provisions.

The meeting, convened ten months ago to discuss joint action against overcapacity in the global steel industry, largely attributed to China, was centred on the push by the EU and Japan for exclusion from the tariffs on the basis that they were “strategic allies” of the US.

But due to the increasingly ad hoc—bordering on chaotic—character of decision-making within the Trump administration, US trade representative Robert Lighthizer was unable to give his EU and Japanese counterparts any indication of what criteria they would have to meet in order to gain an exemption.

EU trade representative Cecilia Malmström said she had a “frank discussion” with Lighthizer after a bilateral meeting, but there was “no immediate clarity on the exact US procedure for exemption however, so discussions will continue next week.”

The Wall Street Journal cited “people familiar with the discussions” as saying that Lighthizer failed to spell out Washington’s expectations of countries seeking exemptions and that the “US still appears to be formulating its guidelines on waivers, which may be published soon.” It cited an unnamed EU official, who said that Lighthizer appeared to be open to the idea that “we could be excluded” but “we will have to see how that translates into the documents they will be publishing.”

Officials from the US trade representative’s office, however, refused to comment on the talks, so there must be considerable doubt as to whether any stipulations will actually be set down. The agenda for further discussions is also unclear, with officials from both sides expected to engage in talks, though not at a high level, according to the WSJ.

Insofar as the exact agenda of the Trump White House can be followed, it appears to be seeking to use the threatened tariffs on steel and aluminium as a battering ram to secure further concessions for the US.

This is the procedure that has been adopted with regard to Canada and Mexico, both of which have been exempted from the measures during the renegotiation of the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and will be permanently excluded provided the US can secure what it considers to be a satisfactory outcome.

Judging from a tweet issued by Trump before the talks in Brussels began, this approach may be developed more broadly.

“The European Union,” Trump wrote, “wonderful countries who treat the US very badly on trade, are complaining about tariffs on steel and aluminium. If they drop their horrific barriers and tariffs on US products going in, we will likewise drop ours. If not, we tax cars etc. FAIR!”

Japan’s minister of trade and industry, Hiroshige Seko, told reporters after Saturday’s meeting he still hoped Japan could secure an exemption. He said the measures “could disrupt the steel and aluminium markets of the world and have a negative impact.”

Trump has also directed fire, however, against the US-Japan trade deficit. In another tweet, he said he had held discussions with Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe, who was very enthusiastic about the talks with North Korea. “Also discussing opening up Japan to much better trade with the US. Currently have a massive $100 billion trade deficit. Not fair or sustainable.”

Estimates for the US trade deficit with Japan put it at somewhere just under $70 billion, rather than the figure claimed by Trump.

In line with Trump’s bilateral approach, characteristic of the ideology which prevailed in the disastrous trade wars of the 1930s, trade is regarded as a zero-sum game, in which any deficit incurred by the US is regarded as detrimental to its national interests.

One of the reasons Australia may have been granted an exemption from the tariffs is because, as Trump noted in announcing the decision, the US enjoys a trade surplus with it. He also made reference to a security agreement. But the Australian government was quick to downplay suggestions that a new deal had been struck, insisting that this referred to “paper work” for an exemption from the tariff proclamation.

While that may be the case, the Trump White House will certainly be demanding undivided Australian support for its militarist and economic measures. A crucial question will be whether Canberra, which proclaims its support for free trade, backs any action against the steel and aluminium measures if a case is launched against the US through the World Trade Organisation.

While the EU has said it is looking to impose tariffs worth $3.5 billion against the US, if it goes ahead, China has yet to announce any possible retaliation, with officials confining themselves to warnings about the implications for the global trading system.

Chinese commerce minister Zhong Zang said any trade war with the US will only bring disaster for the world economy.

“China does not wish to fight a trade war, nor will China initiate a trade war, but we can handle any challenge and we will resolutely defend the interests of our country and our people,” he said.

A much bigger issue than steel and tariffs looms for the Chinese regime, as the US considers action under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act against China over technology transfers, innovation and alleged Chinese intellectual property theft. A report on an investigation launched by the Trump administration last year is expected in a few months.

In other measures under consideration, the Financial Times reported that the Trump administration has called for the Chinese to produce a written plan to reduce the bilateral trade deficit by $100 billion.

While the immediate outcome of negotiations over which counties may gain exemptions from the US steel and tariff measures remains unclear, the longer term implications for the global trading system are not.

In an opinion piece published in the Financial Times on Saturday, Princeton University professor and author of a study on the World Trade Organisation, Christina Davis, wrote that “the world trading system is on the verge of collapse.” The Trump decision, ostensibly taken in US national security interests, threatened much more than foreign companies exporting to US markets and American businesses using imported steel. “It declares war on the trade system.”

Davis noted that the Trump measures were not confined to the US, but formed part of a developing global trend.

“While the US once led in the creation of the trade rules,” she wrote, “now it challenges their value. By favouring bilateral over multilateral deals, Mr Trump joins a wider trend for preferential agreements that carve up global trade into regional blocs.”

This international tendency, which had such disastrous consequences in the 1930s, is exemplified by the fact that the WTO has been unable to reach any new agreement on global trade, in the course of negotiations stretching back over the past 17 years.

Nissan layoffs impact 550 workers at Cuernavaca, Mexico assembly plant

Alex González

On March 2, Nissan announced the layoff of 550 workers at its Cuernavaca, Morelos assembly plant (CIVAC). The layoffs represent the elimination of an entire shift and come in the wake of a continued decline in auto sales. Combined with 600 layoffs at the facility last year, there have been 1,150 layoffs at CIVAC in less than a year.

Nissan has two manufacturing plants in the central state of Morelos, employing over 3,500 full and part-time workers. Nissan is the highest-selling auto company in Mexico, capturing 25 percent of the national market. The CIVAC plants produce 56 percent of Nissan’s cars in Mexico and assemble the popular Versa and NP300 pickup models. Until May of last year, the plants also built the company’s Tsuru model, which was discontinued because it could no longer meet safety and environmental standards.

Nissan also recently announced that, as of June of this year, the plants would no longer assemble the Tiida model. The CIVAC plants assembled over 800,000 cars in 2016.

The company cited a fall in sales and overstock for the layoffs at the plants. Nissan auto sales in Mexico have fallen by 15.9 percent since June 2017, while the industry as a whole saw a 9.4 percent decline in Mexican car sales in January and February of this year compared to the same period last year. According to the director of the Mexican Association of Automotive Sector (AMIA), a decrease in sales is due to a rise in inflation and an increase in interest rates.

The layoffs will have a ripple effect through the area, affecting the region’s production of tires, auto parts, and transportation of finished cars. According to the state government, the CIVAC complex is the main direct and indirect job provider in Morelos. The tire manufacturer Bridgestone and auto parts maker Autotek have manufacturing centers in the state that service the CIVAC plants. The CIVAC plants have been in Cuernavaca since 1966 and were the first Nissan plants outside of Japan.

Faced with yet another round of layoffs, the Nissan Workers Independent Union (SITNISSAN) appealed to workers to leave the struggle in the hands of the union. “We urge everyone to stay calm, the committee will keep looking for alternatives so that as few staff as possible are affected,” stated a union bulletin released to workers.

The union’s response to the 600 layoffs last June was a token measure to place the fired workers on a short-list to get rehired if the plants were to expand their production. Andrés Lozano Rojas, the leader of the union, also made nationalistic appeals for businesses to “buy Morelian” to supposedly save local jobs.

The Nissan Workers Independent Union, like other pro-capitalist and nationalist unions, has been fundamentally transformed by globalized production. When faced with the threats to shut down production, the unions can do nothing more than accede to the corporations’ demands for lower wages, less job security, and fewer benefits in what amounts to a race to the bottom for the entire working class.

Nissan had already threatened to shut down the plants in 2013 in favor of increased production at its Aguascalientes plants, which pays lower wages than the CIVAC plants. The Morelos state government quickly bent over backwards to meet the company’s wish list of luring auto parts manufacturers to the area and improving the state’s infrastructure to transport the company’s finished products.

The “center-left” governor of the state, Graco Ramírez, highlighted the class collaborationist character of the unions in the wake of the deal: “The state government relates to the workers, but we are not the enemy of the company, and the union is not the enemy of the company either.”

Reflecting a rise in the militancy of the working class, the CIVAC workers went on strike for the first time in 13 years during last year’s contract negotiations. The workers rejected a 3.5 percent salary increase and a one-time payment of 3,000 pesos, demanding a five percent wage increase. The workers almost went on strike in 2014 and 2016, but the unions blocked industrial action after they were promised more revenue from 500 additional workers that were put under the plants’ collective bargaining agreement.

The events at CIVAC are part of an expanding wave of the class struggle. In Canada, 300 workers at Windsor, Ontario’s ZF-TRW auto parts facility defied their union and decided to go on strike in a determined struggle to prevent a further decline in their living conditions. There is growing unrest among teachers in Argentina, the United States, Sri Lanka, and the United Kingdom, who are mobilizing to fight against years of cuts to public education and falling wages.

France’s fascist National Front congress sets out “to take power”

Francis Dubois 

On March 10-11, France’s neo-fascist National Front (FN) held its first party congress since FN presidential candidate Marine Le Pen lost the May 2017 elections to President Emmanuel Macron. Since then, the FN has been shaken by an internal conflict over its line on the European Union, and its leadership has announced plans for a “refoundation” of the party.

Le Pen, the only candidate for president of the party, was re-elected with 100 percent of the vote. She declared, “Our objective is clear, it is to take power.” She also proposed to rename the FN the Rassemblement National (National Rally). One of the reasons invoked by FN officials for the name change was to drop a name widely associated with neo-fascism in France that would make it easier for the party to make alliances with other political forces, including the traditional right.

The FN organized its party congress so as to stress the international rise of far right forces on both sides of the Atlantic. Le Pen’s speech was preceded by a video message from Matteo Salvini, the leader of Italy’s far-right Lega (formerly the Northern League).

The congress was marked by the surprise appearance on Saturday of former Trump adviser and former head of the far-right Breitbart News site, Steve Bannon. To stormy applause from the FN delegates, he said: “Let them call you racist, xenophobic, Islamophobic … Wear it as a badge of honour. Because every day, we get stronger and they get weaker.” He added, “You are part of a worldwide movement that is bigger than Italy, bigger than Poland, bigger than Hungary.”

FN founder Jean-Marie Le Pen, the father of Marine, whom Marine expelled from the party, while signing copies of his memoirs during the speech, commented: “I think this is not exactly the definition of de-demonization” of the FN.

Since 2016, Bannon has been in contact with the FN founder’s granddaughter, Marion Maréchal-Le Pen, who officially abandoned her positions in the FN and her seat in the National Assembly after the presidential elections, declaring she was leaving politics for a time to enter “into civilian life.” She declared in 2016 that there had been contacts between Trump’s team and the FN. Bannon, for his part, called Marion Maréchal-Le Pen a new rising star in the FN, in an interview where he laid out his ambitions to expand the operations of Breitbart News to France.

After Trump’s election, Maréchal-Le Pen said she would say “yes to the invitation of Stephen Bannon, director of the Trump campaign, to work together.” Last month, while technically still in political retirement, she travelled to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington, DC to speak. In Lille, Bannon again hailed Maréchal-Le Pen, declaring that she is an “impressive” personality.

On Sunday, in a demagogic and protectionist speech, Marine Le Pen attacked globalization and promoted nationalism as an alternative. She presented the FN as an anti-establishment and anti-Macron party, denouncing “money” and advancing xenophobic rhetoric accompanied by masked appeals to anti-Semitism. On this basis, she even made cynical criticisms of Macron’s plans to privatize the rail service, declaring: “Two conceptions of the world are facing off … The globalists against the nationalists.”

Without openly calling for an exit from the European Union and the common euro currency, she announced that the FN is preparing to rewrite the main EU treaties. In a poll held in November, a majority of FN members said that they supported leaving the euro and the EU.

Le Pen evoked all the basic themes of the FN, in barely coded language, presenting appeals against immigrants and Muslims as a “defence of Christian culture” or a need for a strong security policy. The FN’s anti-worker outlook appeared clearly when Le Pen said that “part of our programme is to put an end to May 1968,” the date of the last major French general strike, to enthusiastic applause.

Continuing its tactic of hiding its cloven hoof, its historic roots in the French collaboration with Nazism in World War II and the attempt to maintain French colonial rule during the Algerian war, the FN voted new party statutes eliminating Jean-Marie Le Pen’s position as honorary president. It was thus distancing itself from the party founder, repeatedly convicted for anti-Semitic statements and Holocaust denial, and ultimately expelled from the FN in 2015. The FN renamed its central committee the national committee, without making any major obvious changes in its personnel.

Overall, French mass media presented the congress as showing that the FN is moving towards the centre and the mainstream, compelled to open itself to less hard-line tendencies and to “normalize” its politics. It was also presented as a party in deep crisis, destined for a time to play a minor role, with Marine Le Pen politically weakened or even finished.

Nothing would be further from the truth, however. The European bourgeoisie is putting neo-fascist parties into government, as in Austria, or integrating them without difficulty into plans for re-militarization and attacks on workers’ social rights, as in Germany.

In fact, it is not the FN that is moving to the centre but the financial aristocracy that is moving towards the far right. Over the last five years, the ruling class has systematically taken over the FN’s policies. Under the Socialist Party (PS) government of President François Hollande, or now under Macron, the French financial oligarchy imposed a state of emergency giving full powers to police, and considered writing the deprivation of nationality into the constitution; appealed to anti-Muslim sentiment; and stepped up appeals for a return to the draft.

Now, a section of the French ruling elite together with the American far right is promoting Marion Maréchal-Le Pen as an alternative to her aunt Marine Le Pen, whom many press outlets are dismissing as incapable of leading the FN to power.

But Jean-Marie Le Pen’s granddaughter is very far to the right, a figure tied to the royalist Action française movement, the descendant of the anti-Semitic Action française of Charles Maurras, the main basis of the Nazi-collaborationist Vichy regime, and to Catholic fundamentalists. Bannon’s nomination to the White House was applauded by the Ku Klux Klan and the Daily Stormer, a neo-Nazi site whose name refers to the violently anti-Semitic paper of Julius Streicher, one of the Nazi leaders condemned to death in the Nuremburg Trials.

Thus, what took place at the Lille FN congress was not a reorientation towards the centre, or a lasting move by the neo-fascists toward moderation. It was an operation to reinforce its ties with the more extreme right-wing sections of the Republican Party in the United States, while reasserting the FN’s historic ties with the fascist and colonialist past of French imperialism.

South Korea's ‘Moonshine’ and a Trump-Kim Summit

Sandip Kumar Mishra

In a major of turn of events, US President Donald Trump has announced direct talks with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. The US and North Korea have been loggerheads for a long time on the issue of North Korea's nuclear and missile programmes. The leaders of both countries, after attempting to stare each other down through provocation in word and deed, are signalling their willingness to come to the negotiation table. The credit goes mostly to South Korean President Moon Jae-in, who actively insisted that diplomacy must be given another chance.

After coming to power, Moon Jae-in sought space for diplomacy amidst the irresponsible behaviour displayed by the US and North Korea. The South Korean administration had to go through a phase in which the country did not play a substantial role in determining the security scenario on the Korean Peninsula. The shrill ‘war of words’ between Trump and Kim made it impossible for the Moon administration to give diplomacy a chance in dealing with North Korea. Moon has been of the belief that through engagement, a genuine attempt to build trust with the North Korean regime is possible, and South Korea and the US should both make an attempt to do so. Improved trust and dialogue with North Korea could minimise the relevance of nuclear weapons and missile development for North Korea - at the very least, less than the aggressive pursuit being currently demonstrated - which may ultimately lead to the consideration of North Korean denuclearisation.

The Moon administration must thus be given credit for being persistent and deft in handling the situation. South Korea used the Pyeongchang Winter Games as an opportunity to reach out to North Korea. A cycle has emerged - with successive, encouraging developments - such as postponement of the South Korea-US joint military exercise, participation of North Korean athletes in the games, attendance by North Korean representatives, Kim Yong-nam and Kim Yo-jong's presence in the opening ceremony, invitation from North Korea for a summit meet between the leaders of two Koreas, visit to Pyongyang by South Korean special envoys Kim Chung Eui-yong and Suh Hoon, and the outcomes of said visit.

More specifically, the six-point understanding between North and South Korea during the South Korean delegation's visit to Pyongyang may prove to be a big milestone in the process, with the ability to bring diplomacy back into prominence in dealing with North Korea. In fact, the outcome of the visit was surpassed the expectations of even optimists. The understanding they reached has not only made possible a summit meet between the two Koreas in late-April and the establishment of a hotline between them before the summit, but has also likely induced an important transformation in North Korea’s approach towards denuclearisation.

North Korea had stated that if a security guarantee is provided to the regime, it has no reason to pursue nuclear weaponisation. It has also promised that until the summit meet, it will place a moratorium on nuclear and missile tests. Finally, it has announced that nuclear weapons will be used against South Korea.

The Moon administration has put in the groundwork and made an extraordinary start, and it is now the Trump administration's turn to take on the mantle of responding appropriately. The US has traditionally had two main demands as pre-conditions for direct talks with North Korea. First, North Korea should agree to the final goal of denuclearisation, and second, North Korea must demonstrate its desire for denuclearisation in more concrete terms. It seems that both these demands have been accepted by North Korea, leading to the willingness for talks on both sides. The US must show flexibility on the timeline for North Korea's complete, verifiable, and irreversible denuclearisation (CVID), and adopt a comprehensive approach to arrive at its final goal. The US must be careful to avoid North Korea’s ‘olive branches’, which were shown by South Korea to be signs of Pyongyang’s weakness. It would be misleading to assume that the policy of ‘maximum pressure’ is paying off, and the pressure must instead be continued.

Although the Moon administration has passed the first test of diplomacy, it has many such tests still to go as trust between the Trump administration and North Korea is almost entirely absent. It is useful to keep in mind that the process will not be linear, and back and forth movement can be expected. Another important challenge for South Korea is how it will project these positive outcomes, which are largely thanks to Moon's diplomacy and perseverance, as joint US-South Korea achievements. After all, the essence of statesmanship is attributing success to everyone involved, while taking sole responsibility for mistakes. 

Quad: The Making of a Robust Entente?

Vijay Shankar


The force planner’s primary task is to ensure that the military element of national power alongside economic and political elements supports national strategy. India had in 1950 defined national goals in the Preamble and Directive Principles to its Constitution. It then became a part of each political dispensation to contribute towards nation-building. Is this happening?

The history of the National Defence Academy provides intriguing perspective that underscores the apathy that the Indian military was subjected to by the post-independence administration. Two issues separated in time by seven decades warrant attention. Firstly, how was it that the Indian political leadership of that era, 'statesman' such as they were, failed to understand security, the fundamental imperative of nation-building? Secondly, contemporary geopolitics has prompted the emergence of a security entente - the Quad - that could assure stability in a region at the substratum of global security. Disdain towards the first led within a decade to the 1962 debacle in the Himalayas; while the latter, if not understood for its primary security connotations through indifference and sloth, may well lead to a fiasco at sea.

The government of Anglo-Egyptian Sudan awarded a sum of GBP 100,000 in 1941 for sacrifices made by Indian troops. Two Indian divisions confronted Mussolini’s armies that threatened the Suez and, indeed, the British Indian empire. By the end of the campaign, Italian forces from Eritrea and Abyssinia were routed. A quarter of a million prisoners were taken and the Axis threat to India was from the West quashed. A grateful imperial office made the grant. However, by the end of the war, India's impending independence left the British government in a quandary: how best was the quick dissipating empire to capitalise on these equally depleting monies? It was at Field Marshall Auchinleck’s (then commander-in-chief of the Indian army) intervention that temptation to appropriate for any other cause was evaded and a decision made to establish a National War Academy.

What remained after allocation to Pakistan proved just adequate to acquire land and commence to build. By 1955, the imposing Sudan Block that housed the humanities and administrative departments dominated the Khadakvasla valley. The establishment's insouciance was apparent when no further budgetary allocation was made. Admittedly those were hard times, yet to deliberately oversee the stillbirth of a primary security building block is perplexing. It is to the credit of the military leadership that the remaining infrastructure was constructed using ‘internal resources’. No help came from the government, which barefacedly had deemed the military superfluous. One is then at a loss to explain the foolhardy ‘forward deployment strategy’ at a time when preparedness for war was so parsimonious. The 1959 Chinese incursions at Longju and Kongka La and the 1962 drubbing were consequent. 

The profound influence of sea-commerce on the wealth and energy of nations is well known. The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) has evolved in response to increased Chinese revisionist trends and the need for a strategic security architecture that could lend stability in the Indo-Pacific. The founding countries - US, Japan, India and Australia - driven by a concept of cooperative security, launched the idea in 2007. The strategy however appeared a non-starter with Australia's early withdrawal. It has been recently revived to counter China’s intrusive military power and its unrelenting thrust for an exceptionable proprietary mercantile empire stretching across the region: the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

The only historical parallel to the Quad is the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). World War II had left a devastated Europe sans security that it could neither afford nor envisage, while a militaristic Soviet Union was threatening elected governments with its lure of a utopian fair-to-middling for all. The Treaty was signed in 1949 to contain Soviet expansionism, counter the revival of nationalist militarism, and for the advocacy of European integration. Three remarkable articles were at the core of its charter: Through Article 5, the new Allies agreed  that “an armed attack against one or more of them be considered an attack against all.” Article 3 provided for cooperation in military preparedness while Article 2 lay the under structure for non-military cooperation. Global events of the 1950s and 60s had a dramatic effect upon NATO, for it rapidly adopted an integrated command structure, a permanent secretariat, and doctrines to wage conventional or nuclear war. In time, political stability was restored and there was growing recognition of the new order.

The Quad's charter is yet to be fleshed out; but conceivably, it will have three objectives. The first, to reinforce a rule-based regional order that rejects nationalistic militarism of the kind that has emerged in China. Second, to promote a liberal trading regime and freedom of navigation, essential to secure passage of close to 60 per cent of global trade through the Indo-Pacific. The third, to provide security assurances. However, just as behind the scenes machinations from Beijing splintered the Quad at inception, the entente faces similar fragmenting stresses that threaten the whole. India is locked into a long-standing border dispute with China. Similarly, Japan has maritime disputes in the South and East China Seas while China’s new Air Defence Identification Zone (ADIZ) provides the recipe for mutual interference in the air. Australia on the other hand depends on China for approximately 22 per cent of trade. And there is China’s assignee, the maverick nuclear-armed North Korea, whose influence cannot be set aside. 

As the Quad pushes to get the initiative to fly, success will likely hinge on how they hold their ground against pressure from China, nature of the security architecture, and an understanding of the peril-to-the-whole. Key to the structure will be the charter's constitution in terms of identifying the geographic entity within which it would operate, investments in cooperative security, and apportioning responsibilities. The question is whether the leadership recognises that Chinese realpolitik is at play, and that only a system based on practical rather than moral or ideological considerations can confront it.

Wyss Foundation Visual Arts Scholarship for Students from Africa, Latin America and Asia (Fully-funded to Switzerland) 2018

Application Deadline: 29th March 2018

Eligible Countries: Countries in Africa, Latin America and Asia

To Be Taken At (Country): ECAV, Switzerland

About the Award: Located in the heart of the Alps and in the centre of Europe, l’Ecole cantonale d’art du Valais offers high quality education in graphic design (secondary education graphic designer – MPA) and visual arts (Bachelor, Master, MAS).
The quality of teaching and supervision at ECAV and the Bachelor or Master degrees students obtain help them make the transition to the professional world of the arts.
At the end of their studies, beneficiaries must compile a dossier containing text and images of their work for the School, and submit an original work for inclusion in the Hans-Joerg Wyss Foundation collection. Should a serious problem arise during studies, ECAV may decide to terminate the grant agreement.

Type: Undergraduate, Masters

Eligibility:Candidates applying for a Wyss grant for the Bachelor program must be under the age of 30.

Selection Criteria: Grants are awarded on the basis of candidates’ artistic merit and cover Bachelor (Fine Arts) and Master (Master of Arts in Public Spheres) programs.

Selection: Candidates are selected by professors and heads of ECAV partner institutions on the aforementioned continents (Wits University of Johannesburg, Funda College in Soweto; the Rockston Artists Collective Artists Studio part of the Triangle Arts Trust in Lusaka, Zambia, Pro Helvetia Office, etc.), as well as by a panel comprising ECAV professors and members of the Hansjoerg Wyss Foundation.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: The Wyss grant covers tuition fees, accommodation, equipment costs and day-to-day expenses. It is awarded for one year and is renewable based on one of the student’s satisfactory results.

How to Apply: Applications must contain the following documents:

1. Application form duly completed
2. Application form for the Bachelor program or the Master program
3. covering letter
4. letter of recommendation from a professor or head of an art institution.
5. Curriculum vitae
6. A portfolio of recent artistic work
7. Copies of qualifications (school-leaving certificate, recognized baccalaureate)
8. Copy of passport
9. 1 passport photo

For enrolment on the Master (MAPS), candidates must in addition provide:

1. a copy of the Bachelor degree from a school of art
2. a research project (1 page) having a connection with the public sphere
3. Documents must be sent no later than March 29^th, 2018 for the Bachelor program and April 10^th , 2018 for the
4. Master program by email to the following address: wyss@ecav.ch.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: The Hansjoerg Wyss Foundation

IREX University Administration Support Program (UASP) Fellowships for Research Managers in Africa 2018

Application Deadline: 15th April 2018

Eligible Countries: Armenia, Belarus, Ethiopia, Georgia, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, or Ukraine.

To Be Taken At (Country): United States

About the Award: The UASP Fellowships in Research Management support the development of university research management capacity through a six-week fellowship in the United States for mid- to senior-level research managers. Two weeks of training in Washington, DC, a virtual learning environment, and a four-week placement at a respected US university support participants to build their universities into leading research institutions. Following the placement, fellows are supported to implement reforms in their home institution.

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: Applicants must:

• Be a citizen of and reside in Armenia, Belarus, Ethiopia, Georgia, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, or Ukraine at the time of application and participation;
• Be proficient in writing, reading, and speaking English;
• Be able to receive and maintain a J-1 visa;
• Be available to participate in fellowships in the United States for approximately six weeks during fall 2018 or winter 2019;
• Be committed to producing an implementation plan or comparative case study on a topic of research management while in the United States; and
• Hold a full-time position focusing on research management at an eligible university,* with sufficient seniority to be an agent for change (capacity to introduce reforms following program participation).

Number of Awards: up to 32

Value of Award: The program support participants to build their universities into leading research institutions through:

• Two weeks of intensive research management and leadership training (PDF, 74 KB) in Washington, DC
• A virtual learning environment
• Peer-to-peer learning
• A four-week placement analyzing and observing research management operations at a respected public US university
• Support implementing reforms in fellows’ home institutions following the US placement

Duration of Program:

• September 24–November 2, 2018: Cohort I Fellowship in the United States
• January 28–March 8, 2019: Cohort II Fellowship in the United States

How to Apply: Apply Here
If technology barriers prevent you from completing the application online, please contact uasp@irex.org to request a paper version of the application be sent to you by e-mail.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: IREX

Important Note: Fellows are not allowed to have dependents (including spouses and children) accompany them during the Fellowship.

UNESCO Prize for Girls’ and Women’s Education 2018

Application Deadline: 11th May 2018 (midnight, Paris time).

Eligible Countries: UNESCO Member Countries

About the Award: Governments of UNESCO Member States and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in official partnership with UNESCO are now invited to nominate up to three individuals, institutions or organizations who have made outstanding contributions in favour of girls’ and women’s education.
The UNESCO Prize for Girls’ and Women’s Education honours outstanding innovation and contributions made by individuals, institutions and organizations to advance girls’ and women’s education. It is the first UNESCO Prize of this nature and will be unique in showcasing successful projects that improve and promote the educational prospects of girls and women and in turn, the quality of their lives.
The two laureates of the first edition of the Prize were selected by the Director-general of UNESCO on the basis of recommendations by the International Jury, composed of five experts in girls’ and women’s education. The Prize was awarded for the first time to two outstanding projects from Indonesia and Zimbabwe at an official ceremony that was held in Beijing, P.R. China in June 2016.

Type: Award

Selection Criteria: The two Prize winners will be selected by the Director-General of UNESCO on the basis of recommendations made by the independent International Jury of the UNESCO Prize on Girls’ and Women’s Education consisting of five experts from all geographical regions. The project/programme of the nominee will be assessed by the Jury based on the following criteria:

1. Impact: The project/programme’s impact should be qualitatively and/or quantitatively measureable, and deliver tangible results relative to the invested resources. This can include demonstrable changes in: (1) attitudes, beliefs and practices toward gender equality; (2) girls’ educational participation, attendance, completion and learning outcomes; and/or (3) other relevant parameters to advance girls’ and women’s education.
2. Innovation: The project/programme is stimulating, and/or drawing on, innovative approaches advancing girls’ and women’s education. This includes new ways of working where “business as usual” has failed, and transformative “out-of-the-box” thinking and actions. The project/programme can demonstrate innovation in terms of: (1) the themes covered; (2) the methodology employed; (3) the channels used to create change for girls and women; and/or (4) other aspects.
3. Sustainability: The project/programme has taken steps, ideally from its design or implementation phases, to ensure it will have a lasting impact beyond the project lifecycle. This may include efforts to ensure the: (1) continuation of local action; (2) institutionalization of project components; and (3) generation of further initiatives as a result of the project/programme.

Eligibility: In addition to these three criteria, the project/programme should:

• have already been running for at least two years
• show evidence that it may be replicable, scalable and/or provide significant learning potential for initiatives in other contexts
• contribute to one or more of the five priority action areas of the Prize:
  • 1. supporting girls/adolescent girls to transition from primary education to lowersecondary education and to complete full basic education;
  • 2. supporting adolescent girls and young women to acquire literacy skills;
  • 3. supporting the creation of a gender-responsive and safe teaching-learning environment, free of school-related gender-based violence;
  • 4. engaging female and male teachers to develop gender-responsive teaching attitudes and practices and be change agents; or
  • 5. supporting adolescent girls and young women to acquire knowledge and skills for them to adequately transition from school to work and lead a fulfilling life.

Number of Awardees: 2

Value of Program: Laureates receive USD 50,000.

How to Apply: Nominations must be submitted in English and French via the online platform, only accessible to UNESCO Member States and NGOs in official partnership.
Nominations must be completed online by the Permanent Delegation to UNESCO(See in link below) of the concerned Member State, or by an NGO in official partnership(See in link below) with UNESCO, through their official account.

Visit Program Webpage for details

Award Provider: UNESCO

14th Migration Summer School Scholarships for Developing Countries at European University Institute (EUI) 2018

Application Deadline: 2nd April 2018

Eligible Countries: Developing Countries

To Be Taken At (Country): EUI, Florence, Italy

About the Award: Interdisciplinary in nature, this 14th Migration Summer School provides an overview and critical discussion of key issues relating to the determinants, effects, and regulation of international migration. Examples of topics that will be explored during the two-week Summer School include: the motivations and decision-making processes of migrants; the role of states in regulating international migration; labour immigration policies and the rights of migrant workers; settlement and citizenship; human smuggling and trafficking; asylum and refugees including policy responses to the so-called “migration crisis” in recent years; challenges of integration, particularly in the EU; the role of media in migration debates; public attitudes to migration; migration and development and international governance mechanisms.
The programme also includes a series of inter-active workshops that will allow participants to discuss concrete examples of migration-related policy questions, and to reflect on the various different methods for analysing migration and mobility.
Teaching staff includes members of the Migration Policy Centre as well as other academics and policy professionals dealing with migration and related public policy issues. In addition to lectures, inter-active workshops and debates, the programme includes time for independent study and research.
Participants will be encouraged to translate perceived societal problems into social scientific research questions. The combined insights from political, economic, sociological, legal and anthropological approaches to the study of migration will enable participants to return home with a deeper understanding of one of the most complex and multifaceted phenomena affecting governments and society across the globe.
The Summer School is also a unique opportunity to network with other participants (a selected group of researchers and practitioners from throughout the world), have access to some outstanding scholars in the field, and take advantage of the research facilities of the European University Institute (including the EUI Library).

Type: Short Courses/Training

Eligibility: Scholarships will be funded on a merit basis and they will be awarded to outstanding candidates applying from developing countries according to the following criteria:

• – PhD students or early career academics, early- or mid-career professionals (e.g. in politics, civil service, media and non-governmental organisations), able to demonstrate both professional experience and potential for future excellence in the policy sphere;
• – Genuinely engaged individuals involved in policy issues related to migration either through registration on a PhD programme or through demonstration of substantial relevant career experience;
• – Self-motivated, able to present a clear explanation of why and how the applicant will benefit from participation in the summer school;
• – Fluent in written and spoken English.

Number of Awards: Five(5)

Value of Award: Scholarships will cover the fees, travel and accommodation.

Duration of Program: 25th June – 6th July 2018

How to Apply: Applications should be made by submitting a completed application form by Friday 2^nd April 2018. We regret that applications submitted after this date will not be considered.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: School of Transnational Governance (EUI)

Important Note: Please note, any candidate that applies for a scholarship and is unsuccessful, will not be considered for a fee-paying place at the Summer School. Scholarships are not intended for participants who can be funded by their own institutions

Mandela Rhodes Scholarships for African Students to Study at South African Universities 2018/2019

Application Deadline: 15th April 2018

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: open to citizens of all African countries

To be taken at (country): South African universities or tertiary institutions

About Scholarship: The Mandela Rhodes Scholarships Programme is a combination of financial support for postgraduate studies and a high quality leadership development programme, with the intention to build exceptional leadership capacity in Africa.
A Mandela Rhodes Scholarship enables a Scholar to study at a South African tertiary institution registered with the South African Council on Higher Education for an accredited postgraduate degree programme. The Scholarship is awarded for one or a maximum of two years, currently for an Honours or Masters degree.

Areas of Study: The leadership development programme is made up of the following three components.

• Three residential workshops
• Three regional group pods
• Mentoring

Type: Undergraduate, Masters .

Eligibility and Selection Criteria

• The Scholarship is open to citizens of all African countries
• The Scholarship is for postgraduate study at South African universities or tertiary institutions
• Full funding is for Honours (maximum one year) or Masters (up to a maximum of two years) or their equivalents (MBA’s excluded)
• Any individual who will be between the ages of 19 and 30 years at the time of taking up the Scholarship may apply
• Applicants must posess a first degree or its equivalent or must be in the process of completing one by 31 January 2017
• Applicants should have a history of well above average academic results
• Individuals that reflect in their character a commitment to the four principles of Education, Reconciliation, Leadership and Entrepreneurship
• The MRF leadership development activities sometimes include weekends. It is a condition of the Scholarship that attendance is compulsory

Number of Scholarships: Several

Value of Scholarship: The Scholarship covers the cost of a Scholar as follows:

• Tuition and registration fees as set by the institution;
• A study materials allowance as set by the MRF;
• Accommodation and meal allowances as set by the MRF;
• A medical aid allowance as set by the MRF;
• Economy-class travel allowance for international Scholars only from the Scholar’s home to their institution at the beginning and back home at the end of their degree programme;
• Personal allowance.

Duration of Scholarship: Full funding is for Honours (maximum one year) or Masters (up to a maximum of two years)

How to Apply: All Mandela Rhodes Scholarship applicants are to apply online via the Embark application system.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Scholarship Provider: The Mandela Rhodes Foundation

Important Notes: If you qualify for the Scholarship, The Mandela Rhodes Foundation does not apply to tertiary institutions on your behalf. Applicants must apply seperately to their chosen tertiary institution for the degree they wish to undertake. The Scholarship award is conditional on the applicant being offered a place at the relevant institution.

Africa-China Reporting Project Grants for African Journalists 2018

Application Deadline: 27th April 2018

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: African countries and China

About the Award: The Project is seeking to work with journalists who are able to deeply investigate a single topic of interest within the broad Africa-China framework, and additionally who are able to involve more partners who can assist the investigations, such as news agencies, investigative units, etc. One example of a recent highly successful investigative collaboration engineered by the Project was the cross-border pangolin investigation. The Project worked with Anu Nkeze Paul, an environmental journalist from Cameroon who investigated pangolin poaching on ground level in Cameroon, and with the Hong Kong media house HK01 who investigated demand dynamics and networks in Asia. The result was a ground-breaking investigation on how pangolins are poached in Africa and then trafficked via elaborate routes to Asia.
This series of grants will be supervised by Anton Harber, Caxton Professor of Journalism at Wits Journalism, who will work directly with the selected journalists.
Now in 2018 the Project intends to support more expansive Africa-China investigations by identifying competent journalists and partners to undertake investigative journalism.

Fields of Research: For these investigative reporting grants the Project thus encourages journalists to submit proposals that aim to bring to light fresh and nuanced investigations bringing in new learning about complex Africa-China relations, and ideally that involves other partners and institutions that can collaborate on and expand the investigation; the Project can potentially assist applicants to form partnerships with potential partners. The important thing is for applicants to come with fresh and new ideas for investigations and a feasible plan to carry them out. The Project also encourages multimedia reporting.
As the pangolin investigation above illustrates, there is wide scope in environmental issues for Africa-China investigative journalism and much that can still be investigated in this field. Yet within the Africa-China framework there are various issues where fresh and ground-breaking reporting can be undertaken, such as the following:

• Economy: Corporate activities, criminal networks, business links, etc.
• Social: Health, public services, etc.
• Political: Government dealings/engagements, aid and development assistance, education and sponsorships, etc.
• Environment: Following-up on the ban in ivory trade, complexities of implementation; poaching & trafficking; pollution, etc.
• And more topics such as agriculture; industrialisation; change/evolution in Africa-China ties; anti-piracy measures; Chinese private security in Africa and the arms trade

These are suggested themes, but as long as the focus is within the broad Africa-China framework the Project will consider each proposal on its own merits.

Type: Grants

Eligibility:The Project is looking for experienced investigative journalists who have new and fresh ideas and the means to deliver them.

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Grants: 

• The grants are intended to provide funding for travel, accommodation and sundry daily expenses, but not car hire, purchase of equipment or professional fees, or to buy publication space
• Grants are generally as much as $3000
• Grant recipients will be paid 75% of the grant total at the outset, and the remaining 25% when (and if) the feature is published on a news media platform/publication

Duration of Grants: The reporting project should be completed and published within three months of the receipt of the grant funding unless otherwise agreed

How to Apply: Applications containing the following items should be sent to ACRPapplications@gmail.com by no later than 27 April:

• Applicant CV, and list of previous Africa-China reporting and/or previous investigative journalism reporting
• Proposal for story to be investigated, with a clear headline at the start and a brief report of WHAT will be investigated and HOW, including a detailed methodology for how the investigation will be undertaken (explaining feasibility of timeframe execution) and a planned timeline for the investigation
• An indication of which partners will be used/required and how this will expand the investigation
• A budget with specific line items totalling as much as $3,000

For any further questions please contact the Project team at
africa-china@journalism.co.za.

Visit Grants Webpage for details

Award Provider: Africa-China Reporting Project

USAID Young Women Transform Prize for Developing Countries 2018

Application Deadline: 30th April 2018

Eligible Countries: Developing Countries

About the Award: USAID is committed to empowering young women and unlocking their potential to transform their communities and the world.  Through the Young Women Transform Prize, USAID will support youth in developing countries to develop their own solutions to advance the economic empowerment of young women in their communities.

Type: Contest

Eligibility: Youth-serving or youth-led organizations working in a low-or middle-income country
Grants will only be made to responsible applicants able to demonstrate that they:

• Are legally organized as one of the eligible types of organizations.
• Are in good standing with all civil and fiscal authorities (e.g., not declared insolvent).
• Possess financial accountability and maintain detailed records of all expenses.
• Will not charge a fee or receive profit under the grant agreement.
• Display sound management in their financial, administrative, and technical policies and procedures
• Use a system of internal controls that safeguards assets; protects against fraud, waste, and abuse; and supports the achievement of program goals and objectives
• Are willing to sign applicable assurances, statements, and certifications (visit https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1868/303mav.pdf for more information) prior to receiving a grant, including:
  • Certification Regarding Terrorist Financing (Required for all grants)
  • Certification Of Recipient (Required for all grants)
  • Certification Regarding Lobbying (Required for all grants)
  • Assurance of Compliance with Laws and Regulations Governing Non-Discrimination in Federally Assisted Programs (This certification applies to non-US organizations if any part of the proposed program will be undertaken in the US)
• Do not appear on the “Lists of Parties Excluded from Federal Procurement and Non-procurement Programs” (www.sam.gov) or on the master list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons, maintained by US Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) available at https://sanctionssearch.ofac.treas.gov/.
• Are not designated by the United Nations Security Sanctions Committee (UNSC) under UNSC Resolutions 1267 (1999) 1989 (2011) and 2253 (2015) Concerning ISIL (Da’esh) Al-Qaida and associated individuals groups undertakings and entities

Number of Awards: 10

Value of Award: Prizes of $15,000 to $35,000 will be awarded to grassroots youth-led or youth-serving organizations in low- or middle-income countries to address long-standing barriers to young women’s employment.
Two types of prizes will be awarded:

•  Creation Prize of up to $35,000 each: to support the development and implementation of activities with the potential to broaden young women’s access to, and choice over, employment and economic security, with a focus on collecting and disseminating learning; and
•  Recognition Prize of $15,000 each: to recognize innovative strategies that have improved young women’s economic opportunities, and collect and share learning from that innovation.

Both types of prizes will focus on collecting and sharing learning, and on capturing new evidence and approaches to improve young women’s economic opportunities.

How to Apply: Apply by April 30, 2018, 5:00 PM Washington D.C. local time. The application platform will open on April 11, 2018. The link to the platform will be posted and emailed directly to all those who have completed an expression of interest form.
Download the RFA and express your interest in this prize to receive updates and answers to questions.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: USAID